argument132【0906G ANap Hand 作文互改小组】 第7次作业 by irvine666

irvine666UID: 2575525

提纲:
1.one store没有代表性
2.store和factory没可比性
3.一年的调查不足够支持论点
4.最后一个调查和结论并不匹配.

BTW:时间问题,没法细说了,就把3.4写在一段,简略了一点,等批完再扩展下.

TOPIC: ARGUMENT132 - The following appeared in an editorial in the local newspaper of Workville.
"Workers should be allowed to reduce their workload from 40 to 25 or even 20 hours per week because it is clear that people who work part-time instead of full-time have better health and improved morale. One store in Workville, which began allowing its employees to work part-time last year, reports that fewer days of sick leave were taken last year than in previous years. In contrast, the factory in Workville, which does not allow any of its employees to work part-time, had a slight increase in the number of days of sick leave taken last year. In addition, a recent survey reports that most of the store employees stated that they are satisfied with their jobs, while many of the factory employees stated that they are dissatisfied with their jobs."
WORDS: 519          TIME: 00:35:39          DATE: 2009/1/9 20:00:11

In this argument, the author suggests that workers should have less work time by reason of their health. However, to my understanding, the series of deductions by the author is not as valid as it seems to be.

First and foremost, the author investigated only “One store in Workvile” then makes this suggestion, but he failed to consider the situations of other places in Workville. The store surveyed may offer much more comfortable and suitable circumstance for its employees, or perhaps the work itself is not intense one. Consider the job of brainwork as a representative example, the white-collars have more comfortable working environment and easiest frame of mind than the blue-collars. Consequently, the former ones have healthier bodies and happier lives which have nothing to do with work time. Moreover, maybe the workers of the store referred to with fewer days of sick are by no means healthy. They may have more psychological problems while have less illness. For example, the part-time work may cause them to worry about the unemployment or salary cutting, thus lead to mental illness to them, which, may sets red lights of mental health flashing. So the conclusion made by only an investigation of one store is not persuasive to readers.

Withal, the contrast, which seems to be one of the author's best proofs, is not cogent enough by comparing a store to a factory. Primarily, it is known to all that the working ambience is not similar in factories especially in the producing factories to the one in stores. For instance, the salesmen always sit together and talk about the weather, the living standard and every trifles they interested in when there is no customer, while the workers are urged to greater production through fair and foul. Secondly, the objects workers have to serve are not the same either. Generally speaking, the workers working in the factories or corporations, requiring ingenuity and insight, face machines or computers in their work-time, while the ones working in the stores, demanding human touch and patience, face the consumers and the goods all the time. To sum up, since so many distinctnesses exist between two work spaces, how could the ultimateness imprudently drawn by an analogy?

Besides, even though the workers with less work time are indeed healthier and happier than the ones with more work time, one-year's investigation, by no means eternal, is still not enough to demonstrate the truth. Furthermore, the last survey illustrated by the author, in my opinion, cannot support the conclusion well. It only emphasizes worker's attitude towards job, such as working condition, payment, and working style, not only workload. Hence the argument can hardly convince me.

As is mentioned above, the author failed to make a persuasive summing-up for the invalid contrast and insufficient investigations. To reinforce his conclusion, a long-term survey, including both physical and psychological health of all workers, must be conducted. However, since reducing the workload is perhaps little beneficial to individuals but harmful to society and economy like dancing at the brink of scarp to my way of thinking, the suggestion is not a proper one.

goingeastUID: 2439824

In this argument, the author suggests that workers should have less work time by reason of their health. However, to my understanding, the series of deductions by the author is not as valid as it seems to be.

First and foremost, the author investigated only “One store in Workvile” then makes this suggestion, but he failed to consider the situations of other places in Workville. The store surveyed may offer much more comfortable and suitable circumstance for its employees, or perhaps the work itself is not intense one. Consider the job of brainwork as a representative example, the white-collars have more comfortable working environment and easiest frame of mind than the blue-collars. Consequently, the former ones have healthier bodies and happier lives which have nothing to do with work time.【这个例子，个人觉得不太好】 Moreover, maybe the workers of the store referred to with fewer days of sick are by no means healthy. They may have more psychological problems while have less illness. For example, the part-time work may cause them to worry about the unemployment or salary cutting, thus lead to mental illness to them, which, may sets red lights of mental health flashing. So the conclusion made by only an investigation of one store is not persuasive to readers.

Withal, the contrast, which seems to be one of the author's best proofs, is not cogent enough by comparing a store to a factory[这句有点啰嗦，去掉which不说，翻译成中文是 通过对一个比较商店和工厂的对比不是足够的令人信服，the contrast between a store and a factory is not cogent enough]. Primarily, it is known to all that the working ambience is not similar in factories especially in the producing factories to the one in stores. For instance, the salesmen always sit together and talk about the weather, the living standard and every trifles they interested in when there is no customer, while the workers are urged to greater production through fair and foul. Secondly, the objects workers have to serve are not the same either. Generally speaking, the workers working in the factories or corporations, requiring ingenuity and insight, face machines or computers in their work-time, while the ones working in the stores, demanding human touch and patience, face the consumers and the goods all the time. To sum up, since so many distinctnesses exist between two work spaces, how could the ultimateness imprudently drawn by an analogy?

Besides, even though the workers with less work time are indeed healthier and happier than the ones with more work time, one-year's investigation, by no means eternal, is still not enough to demonstrate the truth. Furthermore, the last survey illustrated by the author, in my opinion, cannot support the conclusion well. It only emphasizes worker's attitude towards job, such as working condition, payment, and working style, not only workload. Hence the argument can hardly convince me.

As is mentioned above, the author failed to make a persuasive summing-up for the invalid contrast and insufficient investigations. To reinforce his conclusion, a long-term survey, including both physical and psychological health of all workers, must be conducted. However, since reducing the workload is perhaps little beneficial to individuals but harmful to society and economy like dancing at the brink of scarp to my way of thinking, the suggestion is not a proper one.

本人才疏学浅，看不出太多问题，看了楼主两篇文章，觉得楼主的举例子用的不错哦，学习一下，希望Irvine在用例子时再细致些，一些短语也不错。拿5分应该没问题，继续努力！楼主能在35分钟内写成这样，再看看我，还有很大差距。

[ 本帖最后由 goingeast 于 2009-1-11 22:02 编辑 ]